42 days internment

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

Tomorrow, British MPs will vote on the unconstitutional internment of “terrorism” suspects for up to a month and a half.

The former Atorney General, Lord Cashpoint Goldsmith says that there is no evidence to support the British government’s claim that locking someone up without charge for a month isn’t long enough.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, says that there is no evidence that an increase is needed.

The Lord Advocate or Scotland, Eilish Angiolini, says there have been no cases where a month wasn’t long enough and supports the DPP’s view that an extension isn’t necessary.

The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has said that the security services haven’t asked for the extension.

The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, says that they may seek a judicial review if the bill is passed because it is a breach of our human rights.

So who wants it?  Well, the British government want it and … Sir Ian Bliar, the head of the Metropolitan Police and lifelong Liebour Party member, wants it and … erm, that’s about it really.  A handful of illiberal traitors think that it’s right to illegally deprive us of our constitutional rights in the face of opposition for almost the entire population.

When Traitor Bliar first tried to get an increase to the limit on internment from 14 days to 3 months the British government said that the police had asked for it.  It transpired – not that the papers bothered to make anything of it – that the British government had written to Chief Constables asking them for their proposals on the illegal detention of terrorists for 3 months.  Liebour will stop at nothing to turn this country into a police state – even Zimbabwean law doesn’t allow the internment of suspected criminal for a month and a half.

It has to be remembered that what you and I consider to be terrorists isn’t necessarily what the law considers to be a terrorist.  To most people, a terrorist is someone who blows up buses or shoots up a few security guards before taking over a government building.  To the British government, a terrorist is someone who carries a blank placard outside Parliament or reads out the names of dead soldiers outside Downing Street.  To the British government, a lorry driving exercising his constitutional right to free assembly outside an oil refinery is a terrorist because he is trying to disrupt the supply of fuel or food.  To the British government, anyone who attempts to get them out of power by means of a protest is a terrorist.

This is what the law says a terrorist is and anyone committing any of the above “crimes” wcould quite easily find themselves illegally detained without charge for a month and a half by the state.  Even when they’re released, without charge, the Home Secretary – using the same “anti-terrorism” laws – can order you be put under house arrest or curfew indefinately.  Even if you’ve been found innocent by a jury of your peers.

Any politician that says the “anti-terrorism” laws brought in by Liebour don’t constitute the beginnings of a police state is either a liar or terminally fucking stupid.

Technorati Technorati Tags:


  1. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    So MI5 said, look don’t ask us about 42 days, we don’t do prosecutions, we have no opinion either way. So, what do prosecutors say? That they are “comfortable” with 28 days!

    I’m sceptical of the opinion polls being quoted by supporters. Have the respondents been asked to consider if the measures will actually increase the risk of terrorism?

    On opinion polls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

  2. Axel (1214 comments) says:

    this is a bit i have forgotten but what is the reason that someone cannot be charged with ‘Being in posession of dusky skin’ or ‘smelling of foreign food’, remanded and then charged with something properly terroristy!

    At the speed of our legal system, indeed both our legal systems, that would mean the alleged naughty people could be ‘away’ for a very long time.

  3. Axel (1214 comments) says:

    also do MI5/6 not break into your house, bug your phones, intercept your mail and give your pets silly haircuts before they arrest you, so, when they do arrest you, they know what you have done and dont have to work things out via CPS/Sherriffs Office?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.